2025:CGHC:14756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 925 of 2023 Khuman Singh Verma S/o Kala Ram Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Murhipar, P.S. And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District - Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution) 2 - Laxminarayan Verma S/o Harlal Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Of Kamal Colony P.S. City Kotwali Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Arvind Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Hari Om Rai, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 27.03.2025 Heard Shri Arvind Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Hari Om Rai, learned counsel for the State. 1. Petitioner has made the following prayer in the petition: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash/set-aside the Crmp 925 of 2023 2 FIR bearing No.1017 of 2022 with entire charge sheet (Annexure A-1) in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is accused in the offence of Crime No.1017 of 2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District-Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 353, 332, and 34 of the IPC , which was registered on the complaint made by the complainant- Lakshmi Narayan Verma, respondent-2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 09.12.2022 at about 1 pm when he was engaged in his duty at paddy procuring Center, Kukurdi, present petitioner/accused along with his friend Kalaram Verma came there, and started hurling filthy abuses, threatening him, and committed maar pit with him. By the act of the present petitioner, the work of paddy purchase was stopped for some time, and the incident was witnessed by the other employees, who were also working there. The incident was immediately reported by the complainant/respondent-2 on which FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent-2 is not the public servant, and he is only member of the Society, who engaged in purchase of paddy from the villagers, and without there being any material or without preliminary enquiry, FIR has been registered. The ingredients of Section 353, and 332 of the CrPC are missing. It is only to deprive the present petitioner to sell his paddy at the paddy procurement center, the FIR has been lodged by the complainant. There is no Crmp 925 of 2023 3 sufficient material in the entire charge-sheet to proceed with the trial of the case against the petitioner, and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that when the complainant was engaged in paddy purchase at paddy procurement center, Kukurda. The petitioner came there, and interfered with respondent-2 in discharging of his official duty for purchasing paddy from the farmers. Petitioner abused him and assaulted him by which the complainant has received injuries. He was medically examined by the doctor, who gave the injury report, and immediately FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. Statement of the witnesses Kashiram Verma, Hira Singh Dhruv, Manoj Sagar, Bedram Dhruv, Ramratan Dhruv, Bharat Lal Rajak, and Raj Kumar Sonwani have been recorded, in which they also disclosed the offence committed by the petitioner. There is prior evidence available in the charge-sheet against the petitioner to proceed with the trial of the case. Whether or not the complainant refused to accept the paddy of the petitioner or not, or any deficiency has been found in the paddy of the petitioner, or the factual dispute which is to be decided during the course of trial and at present the allegation and material available in the charge-sheet are prima facie sufficient to proceed with the trial, for which the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial court. Crmp 925 of 2023 4 5. From perusal of the entire material produced in the petition, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the charge-sheet, as there are prima facie evidence available against the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the present petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma